The Bombay High Court while ordering a CBI investigation into the alleged 'suspicious' death of Disha Salian, the former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, took into account the multiple and grave discrepancies in the initial investigation carried out by the Mumbai Police. 

A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale while taking note of the 'glaring' discrepancies, opined that it was thus, necessary for an agency like the CBI to investigate the case. 

"The Police Officers are required to conclude the investigation under Section 174 of CrPC at the earliest to see whether registration of FIR is necessary. This is necessary to ensure that the evidence, if any, is not destroyed or does not disappear due to passage of time. The investigation cannot go on for an inordinately long time. In the present case, the investigation was carried out in two stages and it went on for about six years. This is not the object of investigation under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The investigation carried out by the police raises more questions than it answers. Therefore, investigation by CBI is necessary in this case," the judges said in the order. 

The order came on a plea filed by Disha's father - Satish, who claimed that his daughter got to know about some 'objectionable' activities of the powerful people and she informed the same to Sushant and then these 'powerful' people learnt about the development and thus to silence her she was murdered. The father claimed that his daughter was gang-raped and then murdered.

The Mumbai Police, which initially investigated the case had maintained that it was an accidental death case, wherein Disha died after falling from the 12th floor of a high-rise building in suburban Malad. 

In his plea, Satish highlighted several discrepancies like no major injury on the body despite falling from 12th floor, very less blood found, delayed Panchnama, no proper recording of statements etc. 

The judges, however, noted that in the present case the mandate of section 176 of the CrPC was not properly followed as no enquiry was conducted by a Magistrate and further the police too failed to adhere to the provisions of section 174 of the CrPC.

"This inquiry is either instead or in addition to the investigation held by the police officers. In the present case, no such inquiry is held by the Magistrate empowered to hold inquest. If the inquiry is held, the Magistrate is duty bound to inform the relatives of the deceased. This particular step is not taken in the present case," the judges noted. 

In this case, the bench noted that the Spot Panchnama was conducted belatedly and there are indications that the police were not treating the case as an accidental death case but they were suspecting foul play. The judges noted that initially, the police interrogated Rohan Rai, Disha's friend, who highlighted some important aspects such as his other two friends did not let him to go to the ground floor where Disha's body was lying and also that he was allowed to come downstairs from his flat on the 12th floor, only after her body was shifted to the hospital. 

"As we have observed, the spot panchnama was carried out belatedly. There are statements of at least two witnesses, who were standing near the spot where she had fallen. They had actually heard the sound of somebody falling. Both these witnesses have described that she had fallen on her face and blood was oozing from her head. Those statements are recorded on August 15, 2020 and August 14, 2020 respectively. The police had not recovered any blood stained earth from the spot and there was no bleeding injury to the head except bleeding injury to the chin. Their statements were important," the bench said. 

The judges further noted that the internal examination showed that there was linear fracture of skull bones and ribs. All other organs were intact. The front teeth had fallen.

"If the deceased had fallen on her face from 12th floor, then it is difficult to accept that there was only one injury of the size 1 x 1 x 1 cm in the nature of CLW over the chin. Not a single facial bone was fractured. There was neither fracture of mandible nor even of nasal bone which is quite delicate. We find this difficult to accept. This, of course, would be subject to expert's opinion. We find that there are too many glaring discrepancies which necessitated proper and substantive investigation under the provisions of Sections 154 to 173 of CrPC. That was not done in the present case. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this case deserves registration of FIR and investigation in a cognizable offence," the bench held. 

The bench while noting the 'history' of the case, considered the fact that the investigation was carried out in two phases by the police, which was going on for almost more than six years. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the judges opined, it would not be proper to ask the Petitioner to approach the Court of Magistrate and seek police investigation. However, the judges noted that the Magistrate has no power to direct the CBI to investigate into the offence.

"In this particular case, we are of the opinion that the police had sufficient opportunity to investigate the offence but they have not registered the FIR and have not carried out the investigation of a cognizable offence. Instead, they conducted investigation under the provisions of Section 174 of CrPC, which according to us was inadequate and insufficient in the facts of the present case. Therefore, in this case, another investigating agency like CBI is required to investigate the offence," the judges ruled. 

The bench, therefore, ordered the CBI to appoint a suitably experienced and senior Officer as an Investigating Officer in this case, who is ordered to record Satish's statement and register the FIR. The I.O has been further asked to conduct the investigation regarding all aspects surrounding the circumstances in which the Petitioner's daughter lost her life.

Appearance:

Advocates Nilesh Ojha, Abhishek Mishra, Vijay Kurle, Shivchand Mishra, Ishwarlal Agarwal, Tanveer Nizam, Dipali Ojha, Anushka Sonawane, Devkrishna Bhambri, Shivam Gupta, Ayush Tiwari, Sonal Manchekar, Sagar Ugale, Payal Padwale, Vikas Pawar, Priyanka Sharma, Dipeeka Patil, Ranjeet Yadav, Jairam Yadav, Sumer Singh, Pratik Sarkar, Bhagwan Kasture, Rahul Yadav, Jayendra Manchekar, Meena Thakur and Ravi Jadhav appeared for the Petitioner

Chief Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray along with Additional Public Prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde and Advocates Shubham Joshi, Ankit Patil, Devavrat Hiray, Sanjay Kokne, Krishna Jaiwar and Aruna Borkar represented the State.

Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola along with Advocates Rahul Arote, Uttam Singh Rathore, Shubham Gharbudve, Rajan Gurnani represented Aaditya Thackeray.

Advocates Kuldeep Patil, Saili Dhuru, Digvijay Kachare, Anay Joshi, Yukta Sawant, Sanika Joshi and Sumitkumar Nimbalkar represented the CBI. 

Case Title: Satish Salian vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 1612 of 2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 420

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment